Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 543–560 | Cite as

Methods of solving rapid binding target-mediated drug disposition model for two drugs competing for the same receptor

Original Paper

Abstract

The target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) model has been adopted to describe pharmacokinetics for two drugs competing for the same receptor. A rapid binding assumption introduces total receptor and total drug concentrations while free drug concentrations CA and CB are calculated from the equilibrium (Gaddum) equations. The Gaddum equations are polynomials in CA and CB of second degree that have explicit solutions involving complex numbers. The aim of this study was to develop numerical methods to solve the rapid binding TMDD model for two drugs competing for the same receptor that can be implemented in pharmacokinetic software. Algebra, calculus, and computer simulations were used to develop algorithms and investigate properties of solutions to the TMDD model with two drugs competitively binding to the same receptor. A general rapid binding approximation of the TMDD model for two drugs competing for the same receptor has been proposed. The explicit solutions to the equilibrium equations employ complex numbers, which cannot be easily solved by pharmacokinetic software. Numerical bisection algorithm and differential representation were developed to solve the system instead of obtaining an explicit solution. The numerical solutions were validated by MATLAB 7.2 solver for polynomial roots. The applicability of these algorithms was demonstrated by simulating concentration–time profiles resulting from exogenous and endogenous IgG competing for the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), and darbepoetin competing with endogenous erythropoietin for the erythropoietin receptor. These models were implemented in ADAPT 5 and Phoenix WinNonlin 6.0, respectively.

Keywords

Target-mediated drug disposition Gaddum equation Erythropoietin FcRn Therapeutic antibody 

Supplementary material

10928_2012_9267_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)
10928_2012_9267_MOESM2_ESM.txt (2 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TXT 2 kb)
10928_2012_9267_MOESM3_ESM.txt (13 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (TXT 12 kb)
10928_2012_9267_MOESM4_ESM.txt (3 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (TXT 2 kb)
10928_2012_9267_MOESM5_ESM.txt (3 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (TXT 3 kb)
10928_2012_9267_MOESM6_ESM.txt (3 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (TXT 3 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Levy G (1994) Mechanism-based pharmacodynamic modeling. Clin Pharmacol Ther 56:356–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mager DE (2006) Target-mediated drug disposition and dynamics. Biochem Pharmacol 72:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaushansky K (2006) Lineage-specific hematopoietic growth factors. N Engl J Med 354:2034–2045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang B, Nichol JL, Sullivan JT (2004) Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of AMG 531, a novel thrombopoietin receptor ligand. Clin Pharmacol Ther 76:628–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roopenian DC, Akilesh S (2007) FcRn: the neonatal Fc receptor comes of age. Nat Rev Immunol 7:715–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deng R, Loyet KM, Lien S, Iyer S, DeForge LE, Theil FP, Lowman HB, Fielder PJ, Prabhu S (2010) Pharmacokinetics of humanized monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor-{alpha} antibody and its neonatal Fc receptor variants in mice and cynomolgus monkeys. Drug Metab Dispos 38:600–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zalevsky J, Chamberlain AK, Horton HM, Karki S, Leung IW, Sproule TJ, Lazar GA, Roopenian DC, Desjarlais JR (2010) Enhanced antibody half-life improves in vivo activity. Nat Biotechnol 28:157–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mager DE, Jusko WJ (2001) General pharmacokinetic model for drugs exhibiting target-mediated drug disposition. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28:507–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jin F, Liang M, Wang B, Vainshtein I, Schneider A, Chavez C, Lam B, Faggioni R, Roskos L (2011) Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling of MEDI-575, a monoclonal antibody directed against PDGFRalpha. In: Cynomolgus monkeys. American conference on pharmacometrics, San Diego, CA. http://www.go-acop.org/2011/posters
  10. 10.
    Yan X, Lowe P, Pigeolet E, Fink M, Berghout A, Balser S, Krzyzanski W (2011) Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of pharmacodynamics-mediated drug disposition (PDMDD) of erythropoiesis stimulating agent. In: American conference on pharmacometrics, San Diego, CA. http://www.go-acop.org/2011/posters
  11. 11.
    Mager DE, Krzyzanski W (2005) Quasi-equilibrium pharmacokinetic model for drugs exhibiting target-mediated drug disposition. Pharm Res 22:1589–1596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibiansky L, Gibiansky E, Kakkar T, Ma P (2008) Approximations of the target-mediated drug disposition model and identifiability of model parameters. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 35:573–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenakin TP (2009) A pharmacology primer: theory application and methods. Elsevier, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1964) Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. U.S. Govt. Print. Off, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Selby SM (1975) Standard mathematical tables. Chemical Rubber Company Press, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Press WH (1992) Numerical recipes in FORTRAN: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anton H, Grobe EM, Rorres C, Grobe CA (1994) Elementary linear algebra: applications version: student solutions manual. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hansen RJ, Balthasar JP (2003) Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of the effects of intravenous immunoglobulin on the disposition of antiplatelet antibodies in a rat model of immune thrombocytopenia. J Pharm Sci 92:1206–1215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D’Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A, Wang X (2009) ADAPT 5 user’s guide: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic systems analysis software. Biomedical Simulations Resource, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaccaro C, Zhou J, Ober RJ, Ward ES (2005) Engineering the Fc region of immunoglobulin G to modulate in vivo antibody levels. Nat Biotechnol 23:1283–1288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Egrie JC, Browne JK (2001) Development and characterization of novel erythropoiesis stimulating protein (NESP). Br J Cancer 84(Suppl 1):3–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Macdougall IC (2005) CERA (continuous erythropoietin receptor activator): a new erythropoiesis-stimulating agent for the treatment of anemia. Curr Hematol Rep 4:436–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stead RB, Lambert J, Wessels D, Iwashita JS, Leuther KK, Woodburn KW, Schatz PJ, Okamoto DM, Naso R, Duliege AM (2006) Evaluation of the safety and pharmacodynamics of Hematide, a novel erythropoietic agent, in a phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study in healthy volunteers. Blood 108:1830–1834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woo S, Krzyzanski W, Jusko WJ (2007) Target-mediated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO). J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 34:849–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gross AW, Lodish HF (2006) Cellular trafficking and degradation of erythropoietin and novel erythropoiesis stimulating protein (NESP). J Biol Chem 281:2024–2032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hairer E, Nørsett SP, Wanner G (1993) Solving ordinary differential equations: stiff and differential-algebraic problems. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yan X, Mager DE, Krzyzanski W (2010) Selection between Michaelis-Menten and target-mediated drug disposition pharmacokinetic models. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 37:25–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang YM, Krzyzanski W, Doshi S, Xiao JJ, Perez-Ruixo JJ, Chow AT (2010) Pharmacodynamics-mediated drug disposition (PDMDD) and precursor pool lifespan model for single dose of romiplostim in healthy subjects. The AAPS J 12:729–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hayes S, Ouellet D, Zhang J, Wire M, Gibiansky E (2011) Population PK/PD modeling of eltrombopag in healthy volunteers and patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura and optimization of response-guided dosing. J Clin Pharmacol 51(10):1403–1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berges A, Sahota T, Barton S, Richards D, Austin D, Zamuner S (2012) Development of a mechanistic PK/PD model to guide dose selection of a combined treatment for systemic amyloidosis. Venice, Italy, p 21, Abstract 2546, www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=2546
  31. 31.
    Doshi S, Chow A, Perez Ruixo JJ (2010) Exposure-response modeling of darbepoetin alfa in anemic patients with chronic kidney disease not receiving dialysis. J Clin Pharmacol 50:75S–90SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations